>>64721030They are intuitive, if you have basic knowledge of how a computer works. Abstracting more and more of it would just make things inefficient and more unnecessarily convoluted for those who know what they're doing.

It takes literal years of hard work verbalizing to speak your native tongue so fluently, and decades more to actually become notably good at it, and just consider how often you're practicing that (speaking, shitposting, reading, thinking, dreaming, etC).

>>64721030Excel is only intuitive because because basic excel usage consists of inputting math formulas, something people have studies for most of their school years. Programming has all these relatively new concepts like loops, branches, and especially recursion that people haven't really encountered in this form before.There is also a lack of incentive for people to develop ultra-easy languages, because they would inevitably be inferior to already existing languages in professional environments, as they are not geared towards that goal. So companies have no incentive to create them, leaving the task to academics who come up with bizarre shit like scratch.

>>64721030I think we take for granted how alien a basic desktop computer is to someone who never used it. Pretend you're from some third-world shithole where no one has even seen a computer, and someone sat you in front of a computer and told you to figure it out. And then an hour later told you to figure out Excel.

My point is this: You were taught how to use a computer at some point in your life. I believe that programming could be just as easy if someone were to teach you how the rules and syntax work, just like they taught you the rules of the desktop paradigm (double click to launch a program, start menu, etc.)

Now that doesn't mean that the average joe will automatically be an expert software developer or computer scientist designing complex algorithms. Just like how you have the average Windows user who doesn't know shit about computers, and then you have the people who use powershell and shit. It's kinda like that.

>>64721245Not that anon, but I'm guessing that every field that has significant computational tasks already has a set of libraries for an existing language or a domain-specific language which abstract away most tasks to one doShit(ya_cunt) call.

Because you're looking at structured logic that can become increasingly complex as the system evolves.

A kid can print out "Hello, World!" If I asked that same kid to print out that same by the amount of vowels in that statement, they would have a difficult time even writing out the logic for it. Most schools don't teach basic, abstract logic, e.g., how to break shit down systematically.

>>64721245Generally, if you design something to be really good at X, it will suffer in other areas, so it won't be as good as something else at Y. So if you made a programming language that was really really fucking easy to learn, it would probably end up being a worse option for huge software projects managed by a large number of people (i.e. most commercial software), as you would inevitably have to make some trade-offs for ease of learning.

>>64721030because then you'd have a DSL for every god damn problem domain. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but good luck getting everyone on board with learning or shitting out another utility language.

>>64721030>But programming takes literally years of hard work and patience to get the hand of. Why?Because you lack the kind of thinking required for programming. If you have problems with subjects that work in the abstract (like math) then you're not fit for programming since it's just working in the abstract.